Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) today asked the Obama administration to investigate what he called “the greatest scientific scandal of our generation” — the actions of climate scientists revealed by the Climategate files, and the subsequent admissions by the editors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).

Senator Inhofe also called for former Vice President Al Gore to be called back to the Senate to testify.

“In [Gore’s] science fiction movie, every assertion has been rebutted,” Inhofe said. He believes Vice President Gore should defend himself and his movie before Congress.

Just prior to a hearing at 10:00 a.m. EST, Senator Inhofe released a minority staff report from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee[1], of which he is ranking member. Senator Inhofe is asking the Department of Justice to investigate whether there has been research misconduct or criminal actions by the scientists involved, including Dr. Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University and Dr. James Hansen of Columbia University and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

[The] Minority Staff of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works believe the scientists involved may have violated fundamental ethical principles governing taxpayer-funded research and, in some cases, federal laws. In addition to these findings, we believe the emails and accompanying documents seriously compromise the IPCC -backed “consensus” and its central conclusion that anthropogenic emissions are inexorably leading to environmental catastrophes.

As has been reported here at Pajamas Media over the last several months, the exposure of the Climategate files has led to a reexamination of the IPCC Assessment Reports, especially the fourth report (AR4), published in 2007. The IPCC AR4 report was named by Environmental Protection Agency head Lisa Jackson as one of the major sources of scientific support for the agency’s Endangerment Finding, the first step towards allowing the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

Since the Climategate files were released, the IPCC has been forced to retract a number of specific conclusions — such as a prediction that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035[2] — and has been forced to confirm that the report was based in large part on reports from environmental activist groups instead of peer-reviewed scientific literature. Dr. Murari Lal, an editor of the IPCC AR4 report, admitted to the London Daily Mail[3] that he had known the 2035 date was false, but was included in the report anyway “purely to put political pressure on world leaders.”

Based on this minority staff report, Senator Inhofe will be calling for an investigation into potential research misconduct and possible criminal acts by the researchers involved. At the same time, Inhofe will ask the Environmental Protection Agency to reopen its consideration of an Endangerment Finding for carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Federal Clean Air Act, and will ask Congress to withdraw funding for further consideration of carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

In requesting that the EPA reopen the Endangerment Finding, Inhofe joins with firms such as the Peabody Energy Company[4] and several state Attorneys General (such as Texas[5] and Virginia[6]) in objecting to the Obama administration’s attempt to extend regulatory control over carbon dioxide emissions in the United States. Senator Inhofe believes this staff report “strengthens the case” for the Texas and Virginia attorneys general.

Senator Inhofe’s announcement today appears to be the first time a member of Congress has formally called for an investigation into research misconduct and potential criminal acts by the scientists involved.

The staff report describes four major issues revealed by the Climategate files and the subsequent revelations:

The emails suggest some climate scientists were cooperating to obstruct the release of damaging information and counter-evidence.

They suggest scientists were manipulating the data to reach predetermined conclusions.

They show some climate scientists colluding to pressure journal editors not to publish work questioning the “consensus.”

They show that scientists involved in the report were assuming the role of climate activists attempting to influence public opinion while claiming scientific objectivity.

The report notes a number of potential legal issues raised by their Climategate investigation:

It suggests scientific misconduct that may violate the Shelby Amendment — requiring open access to the results of government-funded research — and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) policies on scientific misconduct (which were announced December 12, 2000).

It notes the potential for violations of the Federal False Statements and False Claims Acts, which may have both civil and criminal penalties.

The report also notes the possibility of there having been an obstruction of Congress in congressional proceeds, which may constitute an obstruction of justice.

If proven, these charges could subject the scientists involved to debarment from federally funded research, and even to criminal penalties.

By naming potential criminal offenses, Senator Inhofe raises the stakes for climate scientists and others involved. Dr. Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit has already been forced to step aside because of the Climategate FOIA issues, and Dr. Michael Mann of Penn State is currently under investigation by the university for potential misconduct. Adding possible criminal charges to the mix increases the possibility that some of the people involved may choose to blow the whistle in order to protect themselves.

Senator Inhofe believes that Dr. Hansen and Dr. Mann should be “let go” from their posts “for the good of the institutions involved.”

The question, of course, is whether the Senate Democratic majority will allow this investigation to proceed, in the face of the Obama administration’s stated intention to regulate CO2 following the apparent death of cap and trade legislation. The Democratic majority has blocked previous attempts by Inhofe to investigate issues with climate science.

Hollywood Heroes and Hollywood Morons

by Bill Levinson

It is instructive to compare the personal character and integrity of today’s Hollywood celebrities and those of fifty or sixty years ago. Today, of course, we have 9/11 conspiracy theorists like Rosie O’Donnell and Charlie Sheen. Hanoi Jane Fonda is still active, while Michael Moore’s Web site calls the terrorists who are murdering our men and women in uniform “Minutemen.” The following information is primarily from Wikipedia which, although we recognize that it is not always authoritative or entirely accurate, is probably good enough for our purposes.

HALL OF HONOR

Marlene Dietrich

In 1941 the U.S. entered the Second World War and Dietrich became one of the first celebrities to raise war bonds. She entertained troops on the front lines in a USO revue that included future TV pioneer Danny Thomas as her opening act. Dietrich was known to have strong political convictions and the mind to speak them. Like many Weimar era German entertainers, she was a staunch anti-Nazi who despised anti-Semitism.

She recorded a number of anti-Nazi records in German for the OSS, including “Lili Marleen”. She also played the musical saw to entertain troops. She sang for the Allied troops on the front lines in Algiers, France and into Germany with Generals James M. Gavin and George S. Patton. When asked why she had done this, in spite of the obvious danger of being within a few kilometers of German lines, she replied, “aus Anstand” – “it was the decent thing to do”.

Dietrich was awarded the Medal of Freedom by the US Government for her war work. She was also made a chevalier (later commandeur) of the Légion d’Honneur by the French government.

Henry Fonda

…he then enlisted in the Navy to fight in World War II, saying, “I don’t want to be in a fake war in a studio.”

Previously, he and Stewart had helped raise funds for the defense of Britain from the Nazis. Fonda served for three years, initially as a Quartermaster 3rd Class on the destroyer USS Satterlee. He was later commissioned as a Lieutenant Junior Grade in Air Combat Intelligence in the Central Pacific and won a Presidential Citation and the Bronze Star.

Bob Hope “…performed his first United Service Organizations (USO) show on May 6, 1941, at March Field, California. He continued to travel and entertain troops for the rest of World War II and later during the Korean War, the Vietnam War and the 1990–1991 Persian Gulf War. When overseas he almost always performed in Army fatigues as a show of support for his audience.”

Hedy Lamarr (Delilah in “Samson and Delilah”) “and composer George Antheil received U.S. Patent 2,292,387 for their Secret Communication System on August 11, 1942. This early version of frequency hopping used a piano roll to change between 88 frequencies and was intended to make radio-guided torpedoes harder for enemies to detect or jam. …Lamarr wanted to join the National Inventors Council but she was told that she could better help the war effort by using her celebrity status to sell War Bonds. She once raised $7,000,000 at just one event.”

Christopher Lee (Saruman in “Lord of the Rings” and Count Dooku in “Star Wars”): “He volunteered to fight for the Finnish forces during the Winter War against the Soviet Union in 1939 – though, as Lee admits in his autobiography, he and his fellow British volunteers were in Finland only a fortnight and kept well away from the Russian forces the whole time. He went on to serve in the Royal Air Force and intelligence during World War II.”

Patrick Macnee “was commisioned as a Lieutenant in the Royal Navy and was awarded the Atlantic Star for his service during WW2.” Not content with fighting cinematic evildoers side by side with Avenger Emma Peel, Macnee also fights them in real life: “In his spare time Patrick enjoys bird-watching, desert reclamation, and preventing terrorism! (He received an award from the Bureau of Federal Aviation for preventing terrorism on aircraft).”

Audie Murphy “received the Medal of Honor, the military’s highest award for valor, along with 32 additional medals awarded for bravery and service.”

Jack Palance

With the outbreak of World War II, Palance’s boxing career ended and his military career began. Palance’s rugged face, which took many beatings in the boxing ring, was disfigured when he bailed out of his burning B-24 Liberator while on a training flight over southern Arizona, where he was a student pilot. Plastic surgeons repaired the damage as best they could, but he was left with a distinctive, somewhat gaunt, look. After much reconstructive surgery, he was discharged in 1944.

Ronald Reagan

On May 25, 1937, Reagan was appointed a second lieutenant in the Officers’ Reserve Corps of the Cavalry, serving with Troop B, 322nd Cavalry. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, Lieutenant Reagan was ordered to active duty, but because of his astigmatism, he was prevented from serving overseas. Reagan remained in Hollywood for the duration of the war. At the request of the Army Air Force, he applied for a transfer from the Cavalry to the Army Air Force. In June 1942, he was assigned to the First Motion Picture Unit, which made training and education films for the war effort.

Brigadier General James Maitland “Jimmy” Stewart–well, the military rank speaks for itself. The Army Air Force veteran often played airplane pilot roles in postwar films.

In 1944, he twice received the Distinguished Flying Cross for actions in combat and was awarded the Croix de Guerre. He also received the Air Medal with three oak leaf clusters. In July 1944, after flying 20 combat missions, Stewart was made Chief of Staff of the 2nd Combat Bombardment Wing of the Eighth Air Force. Before the war ended, he was promoted to Colonel, one of only a few Americans to rise from private to colonel in four years.

HALL OF SHAME
While Marlene Dietrich was singing for Allied soldiers, Hanoi Jane Fonda posed in a North Vietnamese gun emplacement.

Michael Moore calls terrorists who are murdering our men and women in uniform “Minutemen.”

Rosie O’Donnell, former keynote speaker for the disgraced and defunct Million Mom March, joins Charlie Sheehan in espousing 9/11 conspiracy theories while blaming the United Kingdom for Iran’s recent act of piracy on the high seas.

Susan Sarandon (Susan Saranwrap to Michael Savage) “Sarandon appeared at an Anti-War rally in Washington, D.C., with people such as Tim Robbins, and Jane Fonda. Her stance was, “Let us resist this war” and “Let us hate war in all its forms, whether the weapon used is a missile or an airplane.”” And don’t forget to sing “Kumbaya…” (Given her Welsh ancestry, we recommend that she learn the meaning of “Men of Harlech” instead.) Her behavior is admittedly far less objectionable than that of Fonda, Moore, O’Donnell, and Sheen; unlike O’Donnell and Sheen, she apparently agrees that terrorists used airplanes as weapons on 9/11.

If you’re an Oscar watcher, already buying the popcorn for the February 25th ceremonies, you know what this is. In the words of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, the Hersholt Award “is given to an individual in the motion picture industry whose humanitarian efforts have brought credit to the industry.” In other words, this is one of the few awards given out by the Academy that does not honor the recipient for his or her artistic achievements. It chooses among the Hollywood elite who have used their success in motion pictures for various humanitarian causes.

The award includes among its honorees Elizabeth Taylor (her work on AIDS), the late Audrey Hepburn (the United Nations), Gregory Peck (a variety of charities and causes) and even Charlton Heston in his pre-conservative incarnation as spokesman for the National Rifle Association (for support for Civil Rights, among other things.)

But there’s a name missing from this list, and the fact that it is missing highlights the reason so many conservatives dismiss not only the Oscar but a number of other prominent awards. The missing name, of course, is Ronald Reagan.

Over the course of a forty-year career in almost sixty films, Reagan served not only as president of the Screen Actors Guild but as a master of ceremonies of the Oscars themselves. Yet the only actor to serve as president of the United States, the man historians now credit with winning the Cold War and freeing millions from bondage, the man who just the other day was rated as second only to Abraham Lincoln in terms of presidential greatness — for this actor there was not a snow ball’s chance in hell of being honored by his peers.

Clearly, the reason had to be Reagan’s conservatism. Does anyone seriously think that a former President Robert Redford or former President George Clooney would be unrecognized by the Motion Picture Academy? Of course not. This very year no less than Al Gore — Al Gore!- is up for a golden statue for his global warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth.

The real inconvenient truth about a number of these high profile awards is that if you are a political conservative you can simply forget about applying. The amusing part of all this is that the same-old-same-old results of ignoring conservatives or blatantly choosing winners based on their liberalism winds up demeaning the award itself, degrading its value to the point that fewer and fewer people even pretend to care.

Who today has the same kind of respect for the Oscars, the Grammys, or even the Nobel Peace Prize, all of which once seemed to have a dazzling glow? Let’s be real. The reason Reagan was ignored by the Oscars is the same reason the Dixie Chicks won a Grammy and Jimmy Carter got the Nobel Peace Prize. Carter — and both Bill and Hillary Clinton — even got a Grammy for reading an audio version of a book!

It has nothing to do with the stated purpose of the awards in question. The question of who wins these things is settled ahead of time by the recipient’s politics. Does anyone really believe that if an ex-Vice President Dick Cheney made a film about the inconvenient untruths of global warming doctrine he’d ever see the inside of the Kodak Theater as an Oscar nominee?

It’s too bad. Millions of Americans love movies and music. Why, I know for a fact there are conservatives out there who even cherish peace! Really! They simply disagree on how to achieve it.

Surprisingly, there is one of the younger “awards” that has actually stepped up to the plate on this issue. No less than the John F. Kennedy Library’s “Profile in Courage Award” took a step back from the brink of liberal predictability by giving the late President Gerald Ford its award for his courage in pardoning JFK’s old debating partner Richard Nixon. The move was particularly stunning when one considered the vocal opposition to the pardon from Senator Ted Kennedy. The choice of Ford did the obvious — it gave the Profiles in Courage Award an increase in credibility with observers who had come to believe that it was nothing more than more of the liberal same.

But the Kennedy award is the exception in the awards business, not the rule. The fact of life in the awards business is that conservatives should not bother to apply. Which is why the latest choice to receive this or that award will be greeted by many conservatives with a yawn. What could be more boring then liberals applauding liberals?

So go ahead and tune in to the Oscars on Sunday night. Pop the corn, settle in and pick a liberal to win. You’ll be right. And to say the least, one more liberal getting the Jean Hersholt Award will hardly bring “credit to the industry” beyond notice that diversity is not a Hollywood thing.

Pay no attention to the men and women running the Academy Awards behind their gilded curtains. Al Gore may be able to beat Ronald Reagan at the Oscars, but I have no doubt Reagan would have preferred winning the Cold War over winning an Oscar any day of the week.

He was, after all, a humanitarian.

Jeffrey Lord is the author of The Borking Rebellion. A former Reagan White House political director, he is now a writer in Pennsylvania.

Exhausted from covering J-Lo, T.O., Foley-o, and other uh-ohs, will the media ever find time for minor matters?

Such as that 8,000 Iraqi soldiers and police – volunteers all – have died in just two years, with 16,000 more wounded.

That Iraqi recruits still sign up to defend their country despite threats to their families.

That Baghdad has as many people as Dallas, Houston, Austin, San Antonio, and Fort Worth combined in area smaller than Fort Worth.

That more Americans are murdered in New York and LA than US troops die in Iraq in a year, 43 times as many commit suicide, 21 times as many die in drunk-driving crashes.

That less than ½ of 1% of American troops serving in Iraq have been killed and 97% haven’t been injured at all.

That American troops by the thousands volunteer to re-enlist and return to Iraq, while tens of thousands new recruits sign up year after year.

That Iraq went from tyranny to new constitution seven times faster than America did.

That Iraq’s prime minister has been in office less than six months (will network ratings and newspaper circulation turn around that quick?).

Though wearied from pursuing Paris Hilton, the media might ask why land mines were barbaric when Princess Di spoke but IEDs – causing half of American deaths – are no worse than Gangsta rap?

Since World War II’s the standard for some, they might ask if Baghdad should have been nuked, 16 million U.S. soldiers have served, 400,000 die in combat, 700,000 others be wounded? They could ask who was left to resist in Germany and Japan and with what?

They could probe why the NFL is more serious about steroids than the UN is about WMD. Players have to prove they’re clean, the NFL doesn’t have to prove they’re not.

Then why did the press say it was up to the US to prove Saddam had WMD when the UN decreed he had to prove he didn’t?

UN inspectors proved he produced WMDs. They proved he had been developing even more. Saddam couldn’t prove he’d destroyed them. He lied repeatedly. Take his word? Saddam?

But the UN only barked. Saddam could wait, keep scientists and technologies with zero sanctions, billions from Oil for Food, continue killing more people than have died in Darfur, and have Uday and Qusay waiting in the wings.

France promised President Bush it would send troops as part of a US-led liberation army. Colin Powell then went to the UN. France then went back on its word. Surprise.

Didn’t the press notice the Senate Intelligence Committee lied about what the UN found? That Senators Levin, Rockefeller, and Durbin doctored intelligence documents?

Why didn’t it stress that the UN refused U.S. security in Iraq, saw its ambassador killed, accused the U.S., then belatedly confessed the disaster was its fault?

The ambassador had cited Iraq’s “broadly representative” Governing Council as a “significant step” towards democracy, called it “an achievement to be recognized, applauded and nurtured,” “urged all Iraq’s neighbors to play their supportive role to the full, to embrace the Governing Council and provide it with whatever assistance it may request,” sought to “help facilitate and build consensus among Iraqis, and between Iraqis and the CPA,” discussed with Iraqis “the process of de-Baathification” and “the dissolution of the Iraqi army.”

Then Al Qaeda attacked. The UN ran.

Kofi Annan had said – before the bombing – that his ambassador was “working very closely with the Iraqis and Mr. Bremer to ensure that we do have this smooth transition from the Coalition to the establishment and creation of an Iraqi government down the line. And we are working very well together.”

Nice words.

Pooped from Martha Stewart reporting, the press also couldn’t emphasize that Ayatollah Al Sistani refused even to meet with Ambassador Bremer to rebuild Iraq and reconcile factions.

Bremer still sought Iraqi ideas, formed a Governing Council, wrote,

“The coalition wants them to exercise real power and will thrust authority at them,”

and asked in a broadcast address,

“What things are not working? What can we do better?”

Silence. From Sistani. From his followers.

How many fewer would have died if he hadn’t shut Bremer out? Would Sadr have surged, the domed mosque been bombed, oil fields attacked, electrical grids destroyed if Sistani – supreme leader to the Shia majority – had told Bremer, “These are our demands”?

Next Tuesday is midterm election day. When you cast your vote – if you choose to partake in this most honorable American tradition – please remember what is at stake.

On the left, my former party of choice, feels that the biggest issues confronting America are corporate greed, “the culture of corruption” (as if this does not occur on both sides), Wal-Mart, “big business,” churchgoing Christians, global warming and an assault on the civil liberties of us and terrorists. To deny this would be scandalously untrue.

On the right, my current “fearmongering” party of choice feels the biggest issue (singular) is to eliminating and freeing the world of Islamo-fascist Nazis. There is no denying this, and the sooner we, as in all other world wars, are free to do this, the better. My party wants to save the non-Muslim world, America, Israel and especially “liberal values” like sexual and gender freedoms (not just libertinism, but the freedom of women) freedom of religion, speech and of the press.

Unfortunately, aside from Radical Muslims, we have many domestic factors working against us:

The “Drive-by” big city media feels the need to rant about how we “torture” terrorists, keep “secret prisons,” check phone records of suspected terrorists, regress back to Katrina whining, yada, yada and yada. The ACLU, “peace organizations,” the legal world, academia and Hollywood, not surprisingly, fall for this flawed, inane logic too. History has always proved these acrimonious fools wrong, and will again this time… if we’re not killed first by our enemies because of their devious behaviors.

President Bush, sadly as of late, has fallen prey to dangerous political correctness and multi-cultural balderdash as he tries to unite this country. He has attempted to make good on his promise to be the great uniter, and the man has undeniably been more liberal than conservative the past year.

There is no need to do this, Mr. President.

This country was divided long before President Bush took office, and he has done his best to unite it. But many who hypocritically seek “redistribution of wealth” spend their weekends picking up wheatgrass at Whole Foods on their way to Nantucket, do not want to be united with Americans who attend church on Sunday, wave the flag, and enjoy Nascar, Applebee’s and saving money at Wal-Mart. Too bad for them. These arrogant, misguided folks have chosen to regressively look back, to sacrifice their platform to go after Mr. Bush (who is not up for re-election, by the way).

Fatuous liberals like Paul Krugman — who saw nothing wrong with comparing the backlash against the Dixie Chicks to the rise of Nazism — or the countless jabberers who have over the years denounced William F. Buckley Jr., Barry Goldwater, Sean Hannity et al. as fascists are difficult to respect, much less take seriously. As Jonah Goldberg wrote in September,

“One gets the sense that today’s liberals — beyond their phobia of offending the coalition of the oppressed (in this case, the Muslims of CAIR) — are reluctant to let Bush use “Islamic fascism” because they don’t want to give up their monopoly on the F-word.”

George Bush needs to stop trying so hard to make “peace” with those who despise us within our nation and are more concerned with meaningless impeachment than saving our world. His efforts have never been appreciated, but someday, like Reagan and those before him, perhaps they will.

Thankfully, by the grace of G-d, the patriotic men and women of the military will save this nation as they always have. They will not get thanks from the coastal elites, but this is expected.

It’s not just that the wrong party could take power, but this party’s leaders, some of those who would be in charge of essential committees like Ways and Means, the Judiciary, Commerce, etc, are variously on record as not supporting Israel (and being proud of it!), raising taxes, ending free trade, drilling in ANWR (animals are more important than people, usually) and naturally, impeaching Bush. That will surely take our attention away from the Islamic Nazis, North Koreans and by October of next year, as opposed to fraudulent filmmakers who dream of Bush being dead, we all could be in severe peril. I’d personally put it at 50/50.

I hope that most Americans will take a deep breath, realize Bush had noble, correct intentions for freeing tens of millions from a madman and then remember that unemployment is the lowest in five years; the Dow is over 12,000 points. Inflation is 2.1 percent, the deficit is being dramatically reduced, and gas prices are falling. Let’s just hope that if the GOP maintains control, we don’t waste time, effort and money on Democrat protests and recounts. Which state this time? Indiana? Missouri? Do I hear Maryland?

Ari Kaufman is a freelance writer in Indianapolis, regularly contributing to the Indianapois Star and the Jewish Post and Opinion. He’s also the co-author of an upcoming book on educational reform. His archived work can be accessed here.

by Mona Charen13 Reasons to Vote Republican on Nov. 7October 27, 2006 08:54 PM ESTI can understand why Democrats are jazzed about November’s election. The polls combined with the fawning media (“Oh, please, Sen. Obama, let us kiss the hem of your garment!”) are giving them goose bumps such as they have not experienced since “An Inconvenient Truth” debuted in theaters.What I don’t understand is the seeming tepidness of so many Republicans. Yes, the war in Iraq is a long, hard slog. The world is not Topeka, Kansas (would that it were). A journalist pointed out to President Bush at his most recent press conference that the Iraq war has now been going on as long as World War II did for the United States. Well, yes, but we lost 407,316 men in World War II. On Iwo Jima alone, we lost 6,800. This is not to say that the deaths of our people in Iraq should be trivialized. But comparisons with World War II — in terms of sacrifice and terrible price paid — are ridiculous.Republicans have abundant reasons to reserve a spot at their polling places on Election Day:

1) The economy. More than 6.6 million new jobs have been created since August 2003. Our 4.1 annual growth rate is superior to all other major industrialized nations. The Dow has set record highs multiple times in the past several weeks. Productivity is up, and the deficit is down. Real, after-tax income has grown by 15 percent since 2001. Inflation has remained low. As Vice President Cheney summed it up at a recent meeting with journalists, “What more do you want?” The tax cuts proposed by President Bush and passed by a Republican Congress can take a bow.

2) The Patriot Act. Democrats and liberals mourn this law as a gross infringement upon civil liberties. Yet the much-discussed abuses simply haven’t materialized. The law has, on the other hand, permitted the CIA and FBI to cooperate and share information about terrorist threats — at least so long as The New York Times isn’t publishing the details of our counterterrorism efforts on the front page.

3) The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, to which liberals clung with passionate intensity, has been cancelled, permitting us to work on missile defense. In the age of Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is anyone (except Nancy Pelosi) sorry?

4) Immigration. Republicans in Congress insisted upon and got the first serious immigration restriction in decades. On Oct. 26, the president signed a law that will build a 700-mile fence along our southern border and, what is more important, does not offer amnesty.

5) There has not been another terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. Who would have predicted that on 9/12?

6) Libya has surrendered its nuclear program.

7) A.Q. Khan’s nuclear smuggling network has been rolled up.

8) John Roberts and Samuel Alito sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.

9) Those Democrats who do not want to close Guantanamo Bay altogether want to give all of its inmates the full panoply of rights Americans enjoy in criminal procedures.

10) Democrats believe in immediate withdrawal from Iraq. If they succeed in forcing us to leave under these circumstances, the United States will suffer a stinging defeat in the war on terror. The terrorists already believe that they drove the Russians from Afghanistan and Israel from Lebanon and Gaza. They are convinced they chased us out of Lebanon in 1983 and from Somalia in 1993. According to Osama bin Laden and those who share his views, we are militarily strong but psychologically and spiritually weak. Like it or not — and no one likes it — we cannot leave Iraq now without utterly and decisively validating this analysis. We might as well run a white flag up the flagpole at the Capitol.

11) Democrats would like to eliminate the terrorist surveillance program.

12) If Democrats achieve a majority in the House, Barney Frank will chair the Financial Services Committee, Henry Waxman will head the Government Reform Committee, and Alcee Hastings will chair the Intelligence Committee.

13) Democrats believe that the proper response to Kim Jong Il’s nuclear test is “face to face talks.” That’s what the Clinton administration did for years. It worked out well, didn’t it?

2,808 Americans have died in Iraq the past 43 months. Another 282 have met such a fate in and around Afghanistan as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. Likely all are rolling over in their graves as fellow countrymen who sent them to war are threatening to boycott Election Day.

Particularly disheartening to these fallen heroes must be the conservative abstentions, as likely 90 percent of such Americans were in favor of sending soldiers to Iraq in March 2003, while probably 100 percent supported invading Afghanistan after 9/11. It must be unfathomable to these brave souls that the very people who rallied politicians to risk lives for these efforts are now turning their backs on the honored dead, and what they died for.

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.—Thomas Paine

As amazing as it might seem, due to Republican failures to curtail spending, solve illegal immigration, cure Social Security, and police corruption, many Party members are forgetting the more than a million Americans that have died in battle for the precious right to vote.

Should we forsake that right now because this Congress has failed to address such issues? What does that say to the 3,090 soldiers that have died to give Iraqis and Afghanis such a right, or to the 170,000 Americans still at risk to protect it?

Maybe more importantly, would any of the fallen abstain from voting as result of these other issues if they were still alive today?

If the people fail to vote, a government will be developed which is not their government…. The whole system of American Government rests on the ballot box. Unless citizens perform their duties there, such a system of government is doomed to failure.—Calvin Coolidge

As the elections draw near, I find myself getting angrier and angrier. On a daily basis, I receive e-mail messages from conservative readers explaining why they’re not going to vote on November 7. Fellow conservative bloggers have elucidated their views on this subject supporting the abstainers, and explaining why a Democrat victory in eight days isn’t such a bad thing.

Every morning as I drive to work, I hear callers tell Rush Limbaugh why they’re not going to vote; every afternoon I hear the same on Sean Hannity’s program.

The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all. —John F. Kennedy

So I grow angrier, because I’m saddened for the state of the Republican Party, and wonder how we have so fallen from the exhilaration we felt on November 2, 2004, when President Bush was reelected, and we miraculously added to our majorities in both chambers of Congress. We were going to accomplish so much in the next two years. In particular, finally reform Social Security, and extend the president’s tax cuts.

Alas, as 2005 rolled on, such lofty goals were replaced by scandals surrounding former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, the Vice President’s former Chief of Staff I. Lewis Libby, and a terrible hurricane in the Gulf Coast.

The future of this republic is in the hands of the American voter.—Dwight D. Eisenhower

2006 wasn’t any better, as a proposed sale of American ports to an Arabic company hit the front pages, along with illegal immigrant protests, and a disgraceful scandal involving Congressional pages just weeks before Election Day.

Nice two years, folks. Nice job taking advantage of the mandate we gave you on November 2, 2004.

Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual—or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country.—Samuel Adams

Like many of my fellow countrymen, I’m ashamed of the performance of this Congress, and my Party. However, that shame does not extend to ignoring the most sacred right bestowed upon us by our Founding Fathers. Forsaking that right as a form of protest is un-American and unthinkable for a true conservative.

The ballot is stronger than the bullet.—Abraham Lincoln

Folks that are unhappy with what the Republicans have done in the past 22 months should consider voting for the Democrat in their state or district. Or the Independent. Or the Libertarian. Or write in their grandmother Mabel.

But don’t stay home, for that dishonors all that have died to give you this precious right. Such are certainly the sentiments of great Americans past and present:

If the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made not for the public good so much as for the selfish or local purposes.—Daniel Webster

That government is the strongest of which every man feels himself a part. —Thomas Jefferson

Let us never forget that government is ourselves and not an alien power over us. The ultimate rulers of our democracy are not a President and senators and congressmen and government officials, but the voters of this country.—Franklin D. Roosevelt

When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you for rulers just men who will rule in the fear of God. The preservation of a republican government depends on the faithful discharge of this duty.— Noah Webster

In a world that might say one vote doesn’t matter…, it does matter because each person is of infinite worth and value to God… Your vote is a declaration of importance as a person and a citizen.—Billy Graham

We have a duty to our country to participate in the political process. See, if you believe in freedom, you have a duty to exercise your right to vote to begin with. I’m [here] to encourage people to do their duty, to go to the polls. I want all people, no matter what their political party is or whether they even like a political party, to exercise their obligation to vote. —George W. Bush

Wise words all. Yet, caution shouldn’t be capriciously thrown to the wind when exercising this right, for the consequence of error is great, especially today. The truly judicious, before demonstrating disappointment with their Party by voting for a member of another, should recall the last time Elephants behaved this way. Or have you forgotten that such protestations in 1992 gave us fourteen years of the Clintons, with possibly many more to follow?

With that in mind, try to imagine what turning over the House of Representatives to a dove like Nancy Pelosi (D-California) would say to those that have given their lives to this war effort, and those still risking so. What a shocking statement that would be to our military to hand over the reigns of power to such an irresponsible appeaser less than five years after we sent our friends and family members to die for their country.

So think long and hard, conservatives, about the value of your vote, those that have died to give you the privilege, and the folly of abstention. And, if you still can’t bring yourself to the polling booth on November 7, send a proxy to my e-mail address, for only death would prevent me from exercising this precious right regardless of how disappointed I was in my Party.

Noel Sheppard is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. He is also contributing editor for the Media Research Center’s NewsBusters.org, and a contributing writer to its Business & Media Institute. Noel welcomes feedback.